The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent bank to set aside the notice issued under the Securitisation Act.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order of direction directing the respondent Bank to reschedule the loan amount and allow the instalment facility to a further period of time.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order of direction directing the respondent Bank to rearrange the existing instalment facility of the EMI of Rs.6,200/- to half of the amount as Rs.3,100/- per month in the interest of justice.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Bank is not justified in issuing notice to the petitioner's wife as well, who is in no way connected with the loan transaction, which version is sought to be rebutted by the respondent Bank stating that, the petitioner's wife is a co-obligant. It is stated that, the grievance of the petitioner has also been projected by way of W.P.C. No. 24609 of 2014 -2-
Ext.P4 representation filed before the Bank for re-scheduling the EMI, which is still to be considered.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the request made by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 is only to grant 30 days' time, which period is already over.
4. In any view of the matter, this Court does not propose to go into the factual aspects, as the only relief now pressed before this Court is to cause Ext.P4 to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.
The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, Ext.P4 will be considered and finalized within 'one month'. The submission is recorded and the matter is disposed of accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-